As I recall, the smoking ban in California came mostly from patrons who wanted a smoke free environment. Smoking was still permitted in bars. Later because of the evidence of second hand smoke became apparent an because of employee lawsuits, smoking in bars was also banned.

I don't believe that this would have been an issue if smokers were more considerate of others who find their smoke offensive and sickening.

Fair enough. I'm old enough to remember smoking sections in restaurants here in California and the smoke didn't really give a shit about staying in its little zone.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

The problem was solved in California..smoking banned...so no problem for me. But smokers violate the rights of those who do not want to breath their smoke. The problem is that people need to inhale, smokers can refrain from smoking when they go to restaurants. Maybe restaurants should have separate smoking areas for smokers when they want to smoke....but most restaurants in California were opposed to the cost of having separate designated smoking areas.

If you don't want to breath the smoke, don't go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking. Simple. No one is forcing you to go to those places.

This is where your argument falls apart. Incidental protection is still protection. Full stop. End of story. Incidental or not, it doesn't matter. You're wrong. It's not opinion. It's fact. Protection of those aroud him or her is fact.

You see, even if one person gets vaccinated, you receive some amount of protection.

Incidental or not. and you very clearly said...

"You do realize that vaccines protect the person being vaccinated not those around him or her don't you?"

...which unless you either don't understand language, or you don't understand logic, makes the logical statement that vaccines don't protect those around those who aren't vaccinated [in any way at all].

If you don't want to breath the smoke, don't go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking. Simple. No one is forcing you to go to those places.

But I have a right to go there. Before the ban in California, almost all restaurants allowed smoking. California tried to have separate smoking areas, but as stated earlier this didn't work because the smoke would drift into non-smoking areas. As I recall, at the time people started to demand a ban on smoking in restaurants, a vast majority of people did not smoke. It takes only one smoker to smoke to ruin a meal for others.

What do you do in public outdoor areas where you are apparently opposed to smoking bans? Do non-smokers have to hold their breaths? As I've stated, it is the smoker who is violating the rights of non-smokers not the other way around.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

If you don't want to breath the smoke, don't work at restaurants and bars that allow smoking. Simple. No one is forcing you to work at those places.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. If all restaurants and bars allowed smoking, how many employees will have a choice?

Second hand smoke is hazardous...or don't you agree? Should we void all clean air laws and allow industrial plants emit toxic substances into the atmosphere?...after all its their property and they should be able to do what ever they want. Might as well do away with the Clean Water Act. Like it or not, sometimes there has to be regulations to protect the public.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

If all restaurants and bars allowed smoking, how many employees will have a choice?

All of them. They are not slaves forced to worked there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Second hand smoke is hazardous...or don't you agree?

I do agree.

[QUOTE=FineTunes;1778393]Should we void all clean air laws and allow industrial plants emit toxic substances into the atmosphere?...after all its their property and they should be able to do what ever they want. Might as well do away with the Clean Water Act.[QUOTE=FineTunes;1778393]

Well these are situations where property rights and boundaries are much more difficult, though not impossible, to police. The proximity of pollution is vastly different (much larger in the examples you mention.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Like it or not, sometimes there has to be regulations to protect the public.

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

I agree with it much better for health issues especially younger people who take up smoking and regret it afterward. Best idea yet.Lung cancer increasing, heart problems, diabetes, and so on. Great concept.

I agree with it much better for health issues especially younger people who take up smoking and regret it afterward. Best idea yet.Lung cancer increasing, heart problems, diabetes, and so on. Great concept.

Why not keep the system they had before - some restaurants smoking, some smoke-free. Most eating is outside here most of the time anyway.

Now you have a situation where you can be smoking a joint of pure grass and no probs but spark up a ciggie and you're fined.

Seems a bit silly.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Why do have no problem with government banning smoking from public buildings but oppose government banning smoking from public beaches, parks and sidewalks?

Because those are outside public spaces where second hand smoke is really not an issue.

Quote:

Most people who oppose smoking would have no problem with smokers smoking in public or in restaurants if they could confine their smoke and ash to their immediate area and not litter the environment with their cig butts and smoke. Smokers brought this issue on themselves.

That is absurd. Containing the smoke and/or butts/ash is essentially impossible. Smokers haven't done anything different than they ever have.

Quote:

I disagree with you about not banning smoking in restaurants. They cater to the public and smoking and second hand smoke from cigarettes have been proven as a health risk. If you want to smoke your lungs out I have no problems with that except when it violates my air space. If restaurants cater to the public, they are subject to laws that are designed to protect them....we went through this already.

Every business caters to the public. These are private establishments. That said, I'm less concerned about a restaurant ban than I am a bar ban, open spaces ban, etc. I understand the point about the health risk. But therein lies the rub...if it's such a public health threat, we should ban smoking completely.

It has less to do with the patrons and more to do with the working environment. It's hazardous, plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

As I recall, the smoking ban in California came mostly from patrons who wanted a smoke free environment. Smoking was still permitted in bars. Later because of the evidence of second hand smoke became apparent an because of employee lawsuits, smoking in bars was also banned.

I understand the risks, but it's a legal product. It should be up to the owner to ban smoking, not the government.

Quote:

I don't believe that this would have been an issue if smokers were more considerate of others who find their smoke offensive and sickening.

There you go again. I have never heard anyone make this claim. I doubt I will again. Smokers can be as "considerate" as humanly possible, and second hand smoke is going to be an issue. This is why I support banning it in public enclosed spaces. But outside? In privately owned businesses? Trying to ban cigar shops? Not hiring smokers and actually FIRING current employees who refuse to quit smoking while on their own time? Come on. It's all happened, and it's several steps too far.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I understand the risks, but it's a legal product. It should be up to the owner to ban smoking, not the government.

That is what I have always thought should be the case. I don't think of these bans as trampling on the rights of smokers. It is interfering with the rights of business owners to operate as they choose, by allowing a completely legal activity within their premises.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

I don't believe that this would have been an issue if smokers were more considerate of others who find their smoke offensive and sickening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

There you go again. I have never heard anyone make this claim. I doubt I will again. Smokers can be as "considerate" as humanly possible, and second hand smoke is going to be an issue. This is why I support banning it in public enclosed spaces. But outside? In privately owned businesses? Trying to ban cigar shops? Not hiring smokers and actually FIRING current employees who refuse to quit smoking while on their own time? Come on. It's all happened, and it's several steps too far.

Monologuing again?

From the Incredibles:

Quote:

Lucius: [Bob and Lucius are sitting in a parked car, reminiscing] So now I'm in deep trouble. I mean, one more jolt of this death ray and I'm an epitaph. Somehow I manage to find cover and what does Baron von Ruthless do?Bob: [laughing] He starts monologuing.Lucius: He starts monologuing! He starts like, this prepared speech about how *feeble* I am compared to him, how *inevitable* my defeat is, how *the world* *will soon* *be his*, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed that. No one is forced to work there.

Thats a silly, condescending and morally reprehensible argument.

Millions of people all over the world are forced by circumstances to do things they dont want to or technically dont have to, and that includes working in a smoke filled bar to feed your kids and keep a roof over their heads, and you put up with breathing in the shit because you love them.

Is it any suprise that the sociopathic anti-human viewpoint comes from the right?

Millions of people all over the world are forced by circumstances to do things they dont want to or technically dont have to, and that includes working in a smoke filled bar to feed your kids and keep a roof over their heads, and you put up with breathing in the shit because you love them.

If you want to make the argument that people are actually forced to work in these places, then make it. So far you haven't. Basically the entire argument in favor of banning smoking in these places boils down to "I want to go to these restaurants and bars and I don't want to put up with these smokers."

P.S. I hate...I mean despise smoking. I think it is a terrible and disgusting habit.

But not restaurants and bars...which has been the central core of the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Unsafe working conditions. You can't get around this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I'm pretty sure I already addressed that. No one is forced to work there

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcUK

Thats a silly, condescending and morally reprehensible argument.

Millions of people all over the world are forced by circumstances to do thin.gs they dont want to or technically dont have to, and that includes working in a smoke filled bar to feed your kids and keep a roof over their heads, and you put up with breathing in the shit because you love them.

Is it any suprise that the sociopathic anti-human viewpoint comes from the right?